Putting A Smile On Henry David Thoreau's Dour Face -- November 19, 2015

My wife it out of town visiting our younger daughter in Portland, Oregon, for a couple of weeks. This will give me a chance to start (and hopefully finish) a project that I've been thinking about for quite some time.

I am going to throw out upwards of 75% of my library, all the books I've collected over the years. (I won't literally throw them away; they will be donated to public and school libraries.) My daughters certainly won't want them and it's unlikely my granddaughters will want them. Had we retired in a 5,000 square-foot McMansion it would not have come to this, but we live in a 651 square foot one-bedroom apartment (I thought it was 740 square feet, but that's what the website shows, 651 square feet, slightly larger than Algore's walk-in closet in his master bedroom).

I will keep the best of the best books, but that's all. It will be difficult to determine the 25% of the library that will be kept.

I have a copy of Henry David Thoreau's Cape Cod which is a "keeper."  On the other hand, I don't know whether I will keep my copy of Walden or Life in the Woods. It's easily available; in fact I think it's available on-line in its entirety, one example here.

In the October 19, 2015, issue of The New Yorker, Kathryn Schulz had a great essay on Thoreau: "Pond Scum: the uncool Henry David Thoreau."

From the article:

Why, given Thoreau's hypocrisy, his sanctimony, his dour asceticism, and his scorn, do we continue to cherish Walden? One answer is that we read him early. Walden is a staple of the high school curriculum, and you could scarcely write a book more appealing to teenagers: Thoreau endorses rebellion against societal norms, champions idleness over work, and gives his readers permission to ignore their elders.

I bring this up because the news coming out of Massachusetts this week reminded me of Henry David Thoreau. Henry David Thoreau helps explain why the attorney general of Massachusetts has taken the stand she has: no more. Or for those who speak Spanish, "no mas." No additional electricity. New England has enough electricity, at least "enough electricity to keep the lights on."

She was asked to weigh in on whether it made sense for Massachusetts to invest in more electricity. She pulled out her yellow legal pad on the right side, she labeled "Cost For More Electricity." She drew a long line down the center of that yellow legal pad and labeled the top of the left column, "Potential Savings."  She wrote the single figure taking the state through 2030 on an annual basis. In the right column, $133 million. In the left column, $146 million.

The study was commissioned by Healey’s office, but financed by two national foundations that have contributed to environmental causes.

In its report, the Boston consulting firm Analysis Group Inc. concluded that increasing energy efficiency and encouraging electricity users to scale back their use when demand and prices are high would keep the lights on and save consumers $146 million per year through 2030.

Savings from increasing the supply of natural gas — the main fuel used to generate electricity here — through expanded pipelines would save $133 million a year, the study estimated.

In other words, living like Henry David Thoreau would have advocated, the state could save $146 million per year. Putting in natural gas lines and encouraging residents to live to their full potential in the pursuit of happiness would only save $133 million per year.

The decision was simple: live like Henry David Thoreau when the electricity becomes tight.

The attorney general felt that when push came to shove, if energy efficiency and conservatism were not adequate, there would at least be enough electricity to keep the lights on.

This pretty much tells me the attorney general sees her state as a "no-growth state." Not that there is anything wrong with that.

The attorney general's opinion would put a smile on Henry's dour face.